ikkaiteku wrote:
Do you think this is technically sound?
I also vote "no".
Further, I dislike this company's technical mumbo-jumbo of "opening a semaphore to each logical sector" - an OS semaphore is not needed for this, so the real meaning is still unclear (perhaps this is deliberate on their part, if they are trying to keep their product design "secret").
ikkaiteku wrote:
Their claim here is that by opening a semaphore to each logical sector and zeroing it, but never releasing the semaphore, the SSD thinks the sector is in use and cannot reuse it elsewhere (for wear-leveling or otherwise).
There is nothing that can be done via standard ATA or SCSI commands (no matter what their fancy "semapore" really is), which can force an SSD controller
not to perform wear-leveling of already-written data, if it wants to. I also don't see how their process is any different than just writing to an SSD until it reports full (i.e. max_logical_LBAs written).
ikkaiteku wrote:
By eventually opening semaphores to the total number of sectors the drive has
They can't know max_
physical_LBA using non-proprietary commands - only max_
logical_LBA is reported via the interface standard commands (SCSI Read Capacity & ATA Identify Device). As
Doomer says, max_physical_LBA > max_logical_LBA.
ikkaiteku wrote:
For this to work, we have to accept that the SSD is going to assign physical sector for each logical one Windows says is in use
But there are additional physical "sectors" (actually flash blocks, which are much larger than disk sectors), which are not reported to the host, where fragments of data could still be stored, but which are now in the "over provisioning" extra blocks used by the SSD controller. Windows can't directly tell the SSD controller to write to those.
It's not a perfect article, but this (and the research paper which it references) explains these issues, and I see nothing in the explanation which this company has given to you, that explains how they are able to
guarantee they will overwrite
all flash blocks, on
any SSD, and thereby avoid the problems found by those researchers:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/02/21 ... ing_peril/